But we can't forget there have been heretical popes and anti popes before, even if just for a very short time. St Peter was indeed the first pope to become an antipope of shorts. He joined the crowd and without even realizing it became part of the mob persecuting Christ. Ventura never spoke of a specific pope, he is just making a supposition based on private revelations, church fathers and the book of revelation. I also wonder when the Virgin has said that it will be the lay people that will save the church. That however has already happened at least once. In Bl. Cardinal Newman's Arian you can see it was the lay people who saved the church from Arianism. The vast majority of the lay faithful were against the vast majority of the bishops and political authorities, including the Emperor and the bishop of Rome, who for the sake of unity sided or conceded to the manichean Arian theological propositions. Only st Athanasius and about 8 other bishops of more than 300 were firm against all the rest. And the faithful didn't err by remaining inside the barque of Peter - rather the other way around. Even though they were helpless and the non Arian bishops had been suppressed, their resistance was fearless, and God turned things around in the most unexpected of ways because according to human logic standards the Church should have remained Arian. What Ventura is saying is that at some point there could be a heretical pope (not an evil pope but one that without even realizing it sides withe the mentality of the world and acts like the world expects him to). Then a mystical pope, not a pope that starts an alternative church, just a validly elected pope that will be a lay person, which would be a way of pushing aside the official Church (meaning not the Church but the 'Sanhedrin,' that is the Church 'high priests', academies and other Vatican institutions that by then would have been totally corrupted) .